On Sep 5, 3:11 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 9/4/2011 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> Maybe that's because you don't know anything about abiogenesis. > > I'm fine with abiogenesis,but it's reverse engineered so it doesn't > > explain why biological organisms would experience themselves as a > > separate class of phenomena than chemistry. > > Biochemistry explains biology. Biology explains evolution. Evolution > explains experience.
I understand the point you're making, and in a limited sense I agree (although by changing chemistry to biochemistry, it makes it circular reasoning. It's like saying petrodollars explains the petroleum market) in that cells arise from organic molecules, organisms arise from cells, and experience of organisms evolves with the organism. I think that chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and evolution are necessary but not sufficient to explain experience, life, or order itself. > > > > >> > I suppose you would > >> > "account for" biology by invoking a biologic sensorimotive field with > >> > the appropriate > >> > chronosynclastic involuted topololgical interiority > > Is ridicule scientific to you? > > My apology for my sharp tone. I have become frustrated in trying to parse you > idiosyncratic use of words. > Thanks. It's hard for me too. All the neologisms might be a way for me to communicate that this is a set of fundamentally different ideas so that it won't be dismissed as something derived from other commonly known philosophies. That's why I use a lot of metaphors too - to try to get people to make their own sense out of the ideas and not rely on their understanding of the conventional models which my hypothesis exists to challenge. I don't mind my ideas being rejected or misunderstood - I think that is to be expected, and it's sort of none of my business what people think about them or me, but for me to be interested in whatever criticisms people have, there's got to be something in them relating specifically to the content of my ideas that I can consider. I'm open to being wrong, but I have to be convinced that my idea is being fully understood in the first place and that the criticism either makes some kind of sense which I have not yet considered or argues a point in a way that compels me to reconsider it in a new way. If I've made a mistake, I need to know what you are seeing that I'm not, and I try to acknowledge when that happens, but after so many hours making my case against substance monism/materialism with many different people, I have to say that mostly it's the same argument over and over. Defending any orthodoxy is easy. All that has to be done is sit there with arms folded and say 'no' to any idea which is not explicitly supported by that orthodoxy. For a more interesting experience, I would suggest mentally arguing my for hypothesis instead of against it - just as a devil's advocate exercise. Not a straw man argument in order to demonstrate that it's wrong, but pretend that someone is paying you a huge sum of money to turn these ideas into an academic presentation. Imagine if you were motivated to make sense of what I'm saying, not just the bare minimum it takes to fire back a retort, but if it was your job to persuade someone to get beyond folded arms defensiveness, how would you do it? Would you say that there is no way it could be done - that there is no way that anything could be true if it isn't an incremental addition to the established academic models? How would you make my case if I altered your brain chemistry so that you believe what my brain chemistry believes? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
